Thursday, February 14, 2013

The Rhubarb Patch: A well-regulated militia

To: David Lombardo, founder and president of the Second Amendment Foundation for Education & Research, Shorewood, Il.

Thanks for having me on your radio show to talk guns the other night. A comment I made got your attention, and since it was, admittedly, a poor paraphrase, I thought I'd give you the direct quote from The Economist essay I was dimly remembering:

If Americans were in fact interested in privately owning weapons that allow them to contend against the US Army, semi-automatic weapons would be as useless as BB guns against a grizzly—just enough to make the opponent angry. At a minimum, they would need fully automatic heavy-caliber weapons, rocket launchers, anti-aircraft missiles and tanks. Those are illegal.

You responded to me today by email:

Candidly, I don’t think you understand the level of training and expertise that’s in the civilian population today and the reality of tactics. I think you’d be very surprised by what’s being taught and the extent to which it’s being taught.... The notion that civilians are just guys with guns and little or no training isn’t true.

Well, I'm all for training, but the implication, that your note seems to support, that a significant number of gun owners out there are fixing to do battle with the police and U.S. military is part of your image problem and an apparent impediment to the sorts of compromises that patriotic Americans of all stripes could learn to live with.

I'm among what I hope is the strong majority of Americans who don't believe that the Second Amendment incorporates or confers "the right to commit treason," to borrow the title from that essay I quoted. And, make no mistake, taking up arms against authorities dispatched by duly elected leaders is treason, pure and simple.

This is one reason why the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment are not absolute -- just as the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment are not absolute. It's why automatic weapons -- machine guns -- are illegal and why you don't have a right to own bazookas or shoulder-fired missile launchers and other weapons that fall under the loose rubric of "arms."

We simply can't craft our laws to satisfy the dystopian fears of those who fundamentally fear and distrust government at all levels. And what would be the use? To quote the essay again:

No popular militia (since the invention of the Gatling gun) has ever prevented the seizure of power by an authoritarian ruler. In countries with well-established democratic traditions, authoritarian takeovers are rare; when they occur, popular militias do not resist, or are ruthlessly crushed by national armed forces.

A vision of America governed by the best-armed citizen militia or ruled by people who live in terror of well-armed insurrectionists is simply not one I share.

Guns to protect home, property and self from evildoers in the absence of police? Sure. As noted, I'm with you there. And so, I believe, is the Second Amendment (which was written at a time when foreign invasion was palpable threat).

But I can't accept any argument against firearms restrictions that's rooted in the idea that we need guns to protect ourselves from the government.

Reply from David Lombardo:

A huge number of ex-military and law enforcement people love shooting. The government, be it federal, state, county or municipal, has taught us to shoot -– millions of us. So what’s happened is the creation of action sports. We all understand how to use AR-15s, .45s, etc and are essentially adrenaline junkies or we wouldn’t have gone into the military or become cops to begin with. So we have action sports.

Action sports replicate close quarter battle: Moving and shooting, multiple target engagement, situational awareness, shoot/no shoot scenarios, tactical & speed reloading, drawing from the holster, clearing type I, II and III faults, etc. Scoring, much like video games, is based on accuracy and speed. There’s a lot of emphasis on being very good as there is with any competition and as a result we practice hard and we help one another perfect technique.

Without a doubt the best technique is that used by spec ops and SWAT teams; technique that is not taught to rank and file cops or infantry. Now all this so far is for fun.

Sure, there is a contingent of red meat eaters that are off in the fringe, I wouldn’t deny it, but by-and-large the vast majority are doing it for sport.

But you have to remember we’re using pretty sophisticated techniques because we admire those who have been formally trained in these techniques and seek them out to be trained. Tribal knowledge is spreading daily like a sound wave propagating from a concentrated source. I am responsible for having trained over 4,000 students in the past few years and there are 30 more just like me at my club. Multiply that by thousands of clubs and training facilities around the country.

Then there are those who have a genuine concern for their personal safety. I have trained a thousand or more people in the use of force in defense of person, property and dwelling as the law classifies it. I tell students that unless they’re living in a high crime area the chances they’ll be targeted are miniscule and they shouldn’t live in fear.

Having said that, I can tell you numerous stories of people who were being stalked or threated by someone and the cops were never able to get there in time to catch the perpetrator so they came to me. These people want a firearm in their home for self-defense or they want to be able to carry a concealed weapon and I have a pretty well-known reputation so they come to me.

In every seminar I start with over an hour’s discussion why you don’t want to get in a gunfight and how to avoid one. We talk about situational awareness, having a plan and being able to adopt, adapt and improve your situation, and generally how to stay out of trouble.

I tell them I have no desire to kill any more people and how even when you’re well within your legal right to use lethal force it will be a video that plays in your mind for the rest of your life. You’ll always second guess what you’ve done and wonder if there might have been another way. It’s human nature.

I tell them what it’s really like if you shoot someone at close range, how they may throw up on you, bleed on you, the reality of seeing someone wounded and I also tell them that getting into any kind of fight – fist, knife or gun – means you’re highly unlikely to come out unscathed.

We talk about how the average, non-psychotic/sociopathic, person doesn’t have it within them to take a human life and look at the combat statistics to prove it. In Vietnam we expended 50,000 rounds for every killed in action and in Iraq that number skyrocketed to 250,000 rounds of ordinance. There are a few who can do it; we call them 2-percenters because that’s statistically the percentage of the population that can use lethal force without going off the deep end in the process and without being a sociopath. They are our spec ops guys and I know quite a few of them.

Then we turn to what happens when you have no choice and the three major issues: You need the right equipment, training and practice to prevail and you want to mitigate the potential for criminal prosecution or civil suit.

We spends hours taking about what’s an appropriate firearm, caliber and bullet for home protection under all conditions and for concealed carry; they’re not the same. We show people how to draw from a holster without getting the gun taken away and used against them. Somewhere between 15 and 20 percent of LEOs killed in the line of duty with a handgun are killed with their own gun.

If I’m going to train someone to defend themselves I’m going to teach them the latest, best practices methodology because if they really get into it I want them to prevail. That’s close quarter battle technique.

Having said all that, be it for fun or for personal defense, there are now literally millions of Americans who know some pretty sophisticated techniques and they have appropriate firearms. The bb gun theory is something someone who has no experience in this would say.

A ragtag group of Afghanis literally ran the Russians ragged and ultimately drove them out of their country. In Vietnam the ceaseless hit and run technique was like gnats constantly nipping at our ankles. We never lost a real battle but we were constantly being pecked at day and night and there’s nothing you can do about guerrilla warfare. Tanks and bazookas and all that fancy stuff is made for conventional warfare not urban guerrilla warfare.

Then consider that there are 80 million firearm owners and approximately 700,000 LEOs and the military which can’t take up arms against the civilian population. To do so would be in violation of the Constitution and underscore the illegality of the government action. First, very few LEOs or rank and file cops have training as good as the general gun owner populous. Cops come to me for tactical training because they’re not getting it from their agency.

I would estimate, well on the conservative side, that 50% of LEOs are very pro-gun and would refuse to participate in disarming the American people. I have spoken to a lot of LEOs and almost all say they’d simply refuse to do it because they strongly believe the Second Amendment is a guarantee against tyranny. They also say it would be a suicide mission. But let’s be generous.

Let’s say only 1/4th of the LEOs would drop out leaving about 500,000 thousand who’ll follow orders. And let’s say only 25% of gun owners would refuse to cooperate. Leaving 20,000,000. That’s 20M armed urban guerrilla warfare soldiers, many of whom are better trained than the average LEO, going up against half a million.

The person who wrote that essay was thinking classic warfare, but classic warfare doesn’t exist anymore. It’s been replaced by guerrilla warfare and that’s a war you really can’t win. Heavy weapons, rocket launchers, anti-aircraft weapons, etc are useless in an urban environment unless you’re willing to kill hundreds of innocent people at the same time. One man, one rifle, one shot then he disappears leaving one dead cop.

And his observation that no popular militia has ever prevented a seizure of power by an authoritarian ruler reeks of European sentiment. This is America; we were born under a different mindset and if anything that mindset has become more entrenched than ever.

If we wandered by the wayside for a couple of decades, 9/11 brought it all back into focus. Remind me to tell you someday about the first anniversary of 9/11 and what I was doing. No, I’m guessing your journalist wasn’t American; he sounds way too European. In Yamamoto’s memoirs he explains the reason he didn’t press on to the West coast after Pearl Harbor was because he’d studied in the U. S. and knew “there would be a gun behind every blade of grass.”

So those 500,000 police go door to door searching houses for weapons and they slowly start getting picked off one by one. How can you control it? Tanks have no effect; flame throwers, bazookas, nada. Urban combat, door to door. How many days of that do you need before the anti-gun sentiment of the liberals caves in? How long before elected officials demand an end to confiscation to stop what’s happening in the streets? This president has engendered that level of distrust and even hatred.

If the President and all the Democrats talked and reasoned as you do., there would be discussion because while I don’t agree with all your points I can talk to you rationally and find common ground. The rhetoric of the anti-gun left, the disarming schemes, blaming law abiding gun owners for children’s deaths, making up nonsense about a type of firearm that has almost no impact on street violence, and more are the reason the anti-gun side loses the argument most of the time.

They lie and try to intimidate a huge group of people that essentially can’t be intimidated and who won’t give in. The anti-gun crowd grossly overestimates their power via control of congress and grossly underestimates the pent up power of the pro-gun crowd.

You have the right attitude to find a common ground; your compatriots do not. And each successive demand and nutball scheme more firmly entrenches their opposition.

What you call treason; we call civil disobedience. Did blacks commit treason when they refused to continue to submit? Don’t misunderstand, I’m not a militia type but we do see it as the good fight and there’s nothing worse than someone who believes they’re doing the right thing. The vast majority of we pro-gun folks took the oath; I’ve done it four different times (Army, Navy, and sheriff’s departments in Ohio and Illinois) and no one told me it was canceled.

We are by nature sheep dogs, we’re fighters, we’re willing to put our lives on the line for what we believe in and have done so many times. I spent 20 years wearing body armor, carrying a gun, and going in harm’s way without pay simply because I believed someone has to protect society. Do you think I wouldn’t double down to defend what we see as an assault on the Constitution? It doesn’t matter what the left thinks; it only matters what we think and if we think the left is assaulting the Constitution then that’s what counts.

The great irony is the anti-gun types are, for the most part, unable to defend themselves if something really happened. They hide behind someone else which any tactician will tell you, makes them both perfect victims. The pro-gun joke is, “If pro-gun guys were as violent as anti-gun guys think we are, there wouldn’t be any anti-gun guys left.”

Now, having said all that, do I think it’s likely to really happen? Not really. There are a lot of Democrats who won’t put up with gun confiscation any more than conservatives will. And we certainly don’t want to harm anyone. On the contrary, we’re trying to get everyone educated about firearms but we simply won’t allow anyone to take away our ability to stand up to tyranny. We’ve learned the lessons of Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, and a litany of dictators who rose to power then subjugated their own people.

The question you might want to consider is this. Given that assault weapons by Justice Department statistics are factually employed in about 2/10th of a percent of the aggravated assault cases; Given that the Obama White House tells us assault weapons are not for personal protection but for military operations; and given that the Obama White House wants to confiscate them –- what’s the subtext there?

They’re not going after the firearms that support street crime; they’re going after the firearms that essentially put citizens on reasonably equal footing with law enforcement and the military. Why is the Obama White House afraid of citizens able to defend themselves against tyranny to begin with?

Comments

Wow, I bet he's seeing a whole team of psychiatrists! (Kudos to anyone getting the film reference.)

Zorn was correct to point out the whole "treason" aspect of this debate, which was completely ignored (attempting to conflate it with "civil disobedience" is just silliness).

It seems Mr. Lombardo is unwilling to be honest about the difference between "civil disobedience" and "treason" -- it's the guns. People aren't being accused by the government of treason just for holding a sign in a peaceful demonstration, it's the guns.

Um, as a sort-of mental health professional, I strongly advise against that. Put the keyboard down and back away slowly, making no sudden movements. I haven't seen paranoia like that since my master's practicum. While I'm admittedly not to keen on Obama myself, this is about the worst case of Obama Derangement Syndrome I've seen.

"Do you think I wouldn’t double down to defend what we see as an assault on the Constitution? It doesn’t matter what the left thinks; it only matters what we think and if we think the left is assaulting the Constitution then that’s what counts."

You know what I see as an assault on the Constitution? Threats to overthrow the democratically-elected government organized under the Constitution if you lose an election, and threats to kill people who do not agree with you.

I fail to see why we should take this gentleman's sick fantasies seriously as a reason not to tighten gun laws.

This perfectly illustrates the vast chasm that exists between the left and the right, anti-gun advocates and pro-gun advocates, and advocates for so many other issues. Millions and millions and millions of Americans agree with some or all of what David Lombardo just said. Everyone who has commented so far, however, is insultively dismissive of everything he had to say. The commenters won't even attempt to understand the reason for his views, or to seek to find common ground.

In my opinion, this chasm is unbridgeable, and doesn't bode well for our country.

Thank you very much, Eric, for publishing his thoughts. It's appreciated. I look forward to hearing more. I do notice, however, that he was able to make his points and advocate for his views without sounding snarky, patronizing or condescending; that's a skill you should work to develop. Your comments regarding "treason" and "dystopian" were uncalled for, and reflect an almost deliberate misunderstanding of the mindset of most gun owners. The "weary-sigh provoking" reference in an earlier post was also rather dismissive and condescending. You can do better, and you have in the past.

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

"They’re not going after the firearms that support street crime; they’re going after the firearms that essentially put citizens on reasonably equal footing with law enforcement and the military. Why is the Obama White House afraid of citizens able to defend themselves against tyranny to begin with?"

Levying war against law enforcement and the military is treason. No one is saying that Lombardo is committing treason today. He'd just like to make sure that he can successfully commit treason in the future.

Yes, it does illustrate a "vast chasm". The fact that the right (or at least certain members thereof) seem to think that it's okay to threaten armed insurrection against a democratically elected president - and don't even want the word "treason" to be applied to such armed rebellion - is truly something that I for one can't get my head around.

"This president has engendered that level of distrust and even hatred."
--By doing what, exactly? Breathing? Not radically deviating from the majority of policies of his predecessor?

"The anti-gun crowd grossly overestimates their power via control of congress and grossly underestimates the pent up power of the pro-gun crowd."
--Am I wrong to interpret this as "We're pissed and we have guns so you'd best watch your step"?

"Do you think I wouldn’t double down to defend what we see as an assault on the Constitution? It doesn’t matter what the left thinks; it only matters what we think and if we think the left is assaulting the Constitution then that’s what counts."
--Here I was persisting in thinking that it mattered what we, the people, had voted for in our legally held, Constitutionally valid, democratic elections. And for all that a number of Dems believed GWB was systematically shredding the Constitution, I don't recall much talk of armed insurrection.

"Why is the Obama White House afraid of citizens able to defend themselves against tyranny to begin with?"
--Why is there a faction of citizens who persist in believing that the Obama White House is interested in instituting tyranny, despite evidence to the contrary?

I read this entire post hoping to hear a rational, informed argument from both sides. What I got instead was a frankly terrifying affirmation of the worst aspects of the pro-gun crowd.

I know that Antonin Scalia, in at least one SCOTUS decision (Heller?) wrote in the majority opinion that reasonable restrictions to gun ownership are completely consititutional, because it still allows for ownership of guns for home defense, which is ostensibly what the amendment has lately been interpreted as permitting. Back in my school days we were taught that this amendment was to establish the state militia, or National Guard, and was apparently the accepted opinion until around 2008, according to an article in the Trib today about the UK & what they did to restrict gun ownership after they had a mass shooting (or 2, since then (The UK, 62 million people, gun deaths in 2011 in England & Wales, 59 per the article).

Thank you, Roadgeek, I appreciate your thoughts. You've underscored what I've said for some time. Those who don't know what they're talking about result to ad hominem attacks. People making baseless assumptions for lack of the ability to actually participate in an intelligent discussion.

Eric and I don't always agree on specific issues but when he was on my show last week we had a great discussion, agreeing sometimes and disagreeing sometimes, but always respectful. Several of my listeners emailed me to say they liked hearing Eric's perspective because it was honest and without negativity.

I have come to have a lot of respect for him and if a little snarky pops up here and there, I certainly do the same thing for effect when I write but not in conversation and Eric wasn't at all snarky in one on one conversation.

I believe the more important point is the inability of some individuals to listen and respond intelligently. It is the reason the two sides of the issue can't get together.

As far as not wanting to take another human life is concerned when you're in the military in a combat zone that's what happens. Fortunately I was only in that position a few times because I was in the medical corps.

Three years military, 20 years law enforcement, almost 10 years as a professor. I'm wondering what experience those who are quick with the ad hominem comments have because in all the discussion so far no one has offered any serious insight into the issue beyond questioning the difference between treason and civil disobedience; a topic worth pursuing as I can see both perspectives.

"Do you think I wouldn’t double down to defend what we see as an assault on the Constitution? It doesn’t matter what the left thinks; it only matters what we think and if we think the left is assaulting the Constitution then that’s what counts."

It's not about the Constitution, it's a lie meant to justify their right to treasonous acts against any elected officials who would lawfully regulate guns. This is about the unnatural worship of guns over everything else, including God and country. The pathology of this mind set is terrifying.

Most gun rights people who speak publicly for gun rights don't speak for me. Piers Morgan asked the Texas Attorney General if he supports the ban on machine guns, and he said yes. So Morgan said "I thought you advocated everyone has the right to have the same hardware the military has?"

There's plenty of hypocrisy. I know what the 2nd amendment means (it's one sentence). I don't need a political appointee on the SCOTUS to tell me what it means.

All the weapon bans the govt has are all illegal, immoral, and dysfunctional. No exceptions. The 2nd amendment prohibits Govts from regulating our weapons.

Do civilians have the capacity to destroy our military ? Yes we do, and it would be easy. We already have them surrounded (we know where they are); we supply them with bullets, water, food, and fuel. We would have them depleted in about two weeks. Many civilians are employed at military bases.

Everytime I say this, I 'm banned (censored): the 2nd amendment allows us to kill cops and soldiers if the govt goes rogue. And If our govt ever does go rogue, I'm going to kill as many pigs and soldiers as I can. And I don't care if I'm the only one who has the will to do it.

I own an AK, I hate big govt, I hate standing armies, and I hate pigs who do anything the govt tells them to do (to us).

David, seriously -- have you seen a professional therapist about combat related issues? If not, why not?

As for your military experience, most medics didn't kill anyone -- yet you appear to claim that you have. Which is it? Were you a medic, there to save lives and make things better, or did you kill people?

You seem surprised that there might be people on this blog who are military veterans -- merely because they disagree with your extremely unmilitary-like desire to kill your former comrades in arms.

How do you think active duty personnel feel about you saying that you would have no trouble killing them if YOU thought it necessary? By what criteria do you think you are qualified to make that kind of judgement? Perhaps you should bring that up to your therapist.

Some guy, I should apologize for the way that was worded since it appears my intent was not made clear. Shooting police officers is not something I'm suggesting. My reference to civil disobedience was with respect to not turning in firearms if they banned them.

The comment you are referencing was an explanation of why the idea that armed civilians are no match for law enforcement and the military isn't true.

I'm not advocating open warfare in the least; I was explaining exactly what such warfare would be like and why in countries such as Vietnam and others where there was urban warfare we've always suffered heavy casualties.

I was literally describing what urban warfare is like and illustrating what it would be like in the United States. It underscores why I can't imagine it actually happening here.

If I was unclear about the distinction I apologize. I'll take care to measure my words more closely going forward.

David, I was serious. I think that anyone claiming to have killed in combat situations, and hasn't had ANY kind of counseling about it, is a potential danger. (Dr. X, an avowed professional in this field, will probably concur.)

So, have you ever had counseling by a professional therapist about your killing experiences? If not, why not? It is EXTREMELY germane to this issue.

In a Ph D. Therapy Program everyone also has a therapist. They go hand in hand. Read Patterson's book Relationship Counseling and Psychotherapy, if you have a few hours free. I believe you'll find it interesting based upon your comment.

In the therapy PhD program everone has a therapist; they go hand in hand. If you have a few free hours read Pattersons Relationship Counseling and Psychotherapy. As per your comment I think you'd find it interesting.

Threatening to resort to violent resistance if you don't like the election returns was wrong when Southern slaveholders did it in the mid-1800s.

It was wrong when the KKK did it in the post-Civll War era.

It was wrong when anarchists did it at the turn of the last century.

It was wrong when the KKK reborn did it in the 1920s.

It was wrong when the Silver Shirts did it in the 1930s.

It was wrong when Puerto Rican nationalists did it in the 1950s.

It was wrong when black nationalists did it in the 1960s.

It's wrong when David Lombardo does it today.

This is not about left or right, liberal or conservative. It's about whether you believe that America is a strong democracy or just another banana republic; whether you believe in representative government or anarchic rule by gun.

As the Civil War made clear, the American government will not cooperate in its own destruction. The only thing more absurd than the belief that the Constitution guarantees its citizens the right to wage war against the state is the hallucination that a majority of Americans share that belief.

I think the only thing he said that came close to be both sane & correct was that most cops don't have very good firearms training.
They're terrible shots!
They shoot at people that shouldn't be shot at.
They manage to hit bystanders with great frequency, but miss the bad guys.
When they do actually manage to hit someone with their bullets, they overdue it to a point of extreme overkill.
But you also hear of many cops that freeze when they shouldn't.

--Question, Eric: Did you publish this because you honestly want to have an objective discussion on the issue, or did you publish it for the same reason you let roadgeek's blatantly racist comment stand the other day (because it was "illustrative")?

ZORN REPLY -- I published it because I thought and still think that Lombardo is an eloquent tribune for a mind-set that's more common than I thought And that I'd like to understand better. I arranged with him to publish the exchange before his response arrived, indeed before I wrote my response to him.

And I thought the systematic transfer of wealth to the top 1% was our biggest concern. Thanks for sharing. Now I'm contemplating gun ownership to protect me and mine from guys who can't spell anonymous correctly...

And make no mistake, David is only doing this for the money. This is free advertising.

ZORN REPLY-- "anonymitus" looks to me like the combination of anonymous and posse comitatus.

I will not speak for David Lombardo, but I know I speak for millions of others when I say that I love and respect my country, but I hate and fear my government. Two very different things. It's why I keep guns. It's why I belong to the NRA (proudly). It's why I petition my elected representatives, some more successfully than others. Keeping guns is one passive and low-key way to keep that same government, the one I hate and fear, in check.

Sneer if you want; I'll just focus on keeping my powder dry. Oh, and Eric, you referred to civilians using a "BB gun against a grizzly". Question: how many heavily armed LEO's was Christopher Dorner able to kill or wound? How much havoc was one man with weapons and some Ranger training able to create? One man tied Southern California in knots for nearly a week.

Think about that, Eric. One man. And think about how many other men there are out there with the same training Dorner received.

You should get out of Chicago more often.. There's a whole 'nother country out there. They're great people, these Heartlanders, but they won't be stepped on and they're getting tired of folks inside the DC Beltway constantly thinking up new rules, regulations and restrictions on their lifestyles and activities.

I wasn't aware that Isoroku Yamamoto had written his memoir. If so, when did he have the time? His plane was intercepted and shot down on 18 April 1943, killing him, barely sixteen months after Pearl Harbor, and he was heavily engaged in warfare during that time.

Yamamoto, by the way, went to Harvard, so he knew America and Americans well. There's no evidence that he ever uttered the "sleeping giant" quote from the movie, but it summarized his sentiments about attacking the United States well.

To the point of the discussion. A group of people individually trained in firearm use is a lot different from a military unit of the same size. I'm reminded of a battle of the War of 1812 that took place in my home town, Hampden, Maine. A force of about 750 Americans, consisting mostly of militia but about 200 sailors off the brig Adams, which the British had bottled up in the Penobscot River, met a British force, consisting of about 750 regulars that had fought in Europe under Wellington. The British came ashore at Bald Hill Cove, downriver, and marched roughly up the alignment of present-day US Route 1A. The Americans met them just north of what is now Hampden lower corner. The Americans had a naval cannon that they had wrestled overland from the Adams, and got off the first shot, killing two of the British. The British fired a volley, and the militia ran like bunnies, resulting in a victory for the British.

I suspect that a force of armed citizens would fare about the same against the US military, if it ever came to that. If you haven't seen the elephant, you don't know what it's like, and seeing it is going to come as a major shock.

--DaveB, your comment about going against a military unit is partially true but not entirely in an urban warfare environment. We are not talking about farmers whose total experience was hunting and without discipline or tactical training.

The only correct Yamamoto quote I know is that he told his superiors that he was against the Pearl Harbor attack, but would follow orders & carry it out. He told them if Japan hadn't got an armistice from the US in 6 months, Japan would lose the war.
He was off by a month as the Battle of the Coral Sea was 5 months after Pearl Harbor & a draw, while the Battle of Midway was 7 months after & a total disaster for Japan, which never recovered from losing 4 large carriers in a single day.

Yamamoto knew the US very well, he was the sole high ranking Axis leader that had traveled here, he was Japan's naval attache in the 1920s & took extensive rail journeys & it's a train ride that takes you past the heavy industry you don't see from a road!

Occam's Razor, you may sing Hail to the Orange with a clear conscience. The U of I did not confer a Ph.D on me. While writing my dissertation I was offered a very interesting, lucrative opportunity. I told my advisor and committe I would finish it while working then began traveling all over the world and it still sits collecting dust. My advisor was right; I should have stuck it out.

Seriously, I don't have time or the interest to read David's entire manifesto. I scrolled over it about midway through the second paragraph. I thought about going back to read it after I read the comments. As I scrolled back up to read his screed, I came upon his final paragraph where he was writing about the canard that Obama was going to confiscate assault rifles. And that's when I stopped.

Obama hasn't proposed confiscating assault rifles. He has proposed eliminating the sale of such guns. And let's be honest, he'll never get enough votes to even pass legislation that would do that. Anyone with a lick of common sense could figure that much out.

You are correct FrankS, in that it is highly unlikely he will have the votes but it is clear he would like to confiscate them. It is fundamentally unimaginable that the good Senator wrote and proposed that bill without the consent and support of the president. '

BPost, I just read your comment about I'm doing this for money. I wish I were actually making money. I'd love to be doing this for money but thus far it's costing me far more than it brings in. I'm curious as to what makes you think you know a person's motivation.

David Lombardo's initial statements: "This president has engendered that level of distrust and even hatred... The rhetoric of the anti-gun left, the disarming schemes, blaming law abiding gun owners for children’s deaths, making up nonsense about a type of firearm that has almost no impact on street violence, and more are the reason the anti-gun side loses the argument most of the time. They lie and try to intimidate a huge group of people that essentially can’t be intimidated and who won’t give in... It doesn't matter what the left thinks; it only matters what we think and if we think the left is assaulting the Constitution then that’s what counts... Given that the Obama White House tells us assault weapons are not for personal protection but for military operations; and given that the Obama White House wants to confiscate them..."

David @ 3:59pm: "Those who don't know what they're talking about result to ad hominem attacks. People making baseless assumptions for lack of the ability to actually participate in an intelligent discussion."

David @ 11:54pm: "...it is highly unlikely [Obama] will have the votes but it is clear he would like to confiscate them."

I think the applicable term here would be "dissonance," but I may be mistaken. I have no interest in debating Mr. Lombardo's opinions, but if an intelligent discussion is sought, misrepresentations and absurd extrapolations of other opinions will not help.

Sometimes crazy talk is just crazy talk. And then you have Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols. I was friends with one of the owners of Kingman (AZ) True Value Hardware. At the time we became friends, I didn't know of her store's connection to McVeigh and Nichols. When I learned of the employer/employee relationship, I asked her about them. She told me about how these two men ranted and railed about the tyrannical government and gun rights and how a revolution needed to be started. She and the rest of the people at the hardware store thought it was all talk. And then the OKC bombing happened.

On several forums around the 'net I've been seeing commenters quoting Thomas Jefferson's "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Timothy McVeigh was wearing a shirt with that quote when he was arrested after the bombing. I find this chilling.

Does David consider McVeigh and Nichols to be terrorists and murderers, or does he see them as American patriots?

I didn't make any diagnoses, lexi, unless you count "Obama Derangement Syndrome" which isn't exactly in the DSM. Paranoia is not a diagnosis, but a symptom which could point to a diagnosis. The paranoia expressed here leaps off the page, to the point that I think most mental health professionals would be at least moderately concerned for Mr. Lombardo's mental health, if not for the safety of him and others. Given FrankS's story above, sometimes it's a good idea to get worried and pay closer attention even if it is just "talk".

As I got further and further into the essay, I kept thinking, "he's using a lot of words to not say very much." That did change, a little---I can see that there is a point hiding in in the rambling, although I wouldn't call it "eloquent" as Eric has. But as far as I can tell, the entire thrust of the essay is responding to the specific claim that

"if Americans were in fact interested in privately owning weapons that allow them to contend against the US Army, semi-automatic weapons would be... useless," [from the Economist article]

with evidence that

Americans could in fact contend against the US Army, and would in fact be duty-bound to do so, and this would not be treason but civil disobedience. [paraphrase]

He later claims that he only meant the "civil disobedience" line to be about resisting the confiscation of guns, but this makes no sense as the entire rest of his essay was about the abilities of regular armed Americans to effectively fight the US military, and the entire original "treason" reference had to do with armed uprising, not confiscation.

More importantly, the entire thrust of his essay---"nuh-uh, we could totally fight the army"---misses the *main* point of what it was supposedly responding to, namely that even if Americans could succeed in fighting the army, *that would still be treason*. He never really argues against this, other than the assertion that it would only be "civil disobedience", which he doesn't back up and (as pointed out) later tries to back away from.

@Dienne: I see. I found a link listing 115 causes of paranoia. The first one listed is "Normal personality - people are diverse and some people have more paranoid beliefs or beliefs in conspiracy theories than other people."

It appeared to me that you were diagnosing David as having paranoia beyond normal without ever having met him or talked to him. Just curious, was the paranoia you saw in your masters practicum also displayed in writing or was it observed first hand?

Ah, finally David came clean that he does not have a doctorate -- after insinuating it a couple times. (I think this would fall under the "argument from authority logical fallacy" rubric.)

As I have already stated that I am not a fan of Rogerian non-directive therapy (I consider it the homeopathy of counseling), I am not impressed either with the course of study, nor with the effectiveness of any "therapy" David may have received during his self-aborted training.

@David - I'm interested to hear your opinion on the following questions:

So what would be your suggestions for decreasing the amount of gun violence in our society? In your opinion, what could've/would've/should've been done to prevent tragedies like Sandy Hook? Do you believe in any kind of gun regulation at all? How do we get guns out of the hands of gang-banging thugs like Hadiya Pendleton's murderer without invoking the ire or fear of the right thinking we're after ALL guns?

Dienne, you have to remember that lexi (the internet troll who is amazingly ignorant on a wide range of subject that she nevertheless feels compelled to comment on) is unaware that there are a number of different psychological and psychiatric disciplines that can and do make evaluations without actually meeting the specific individuals.

This is an example of "argument from incredulity" and "argument from ignorance" logical fallacies.

@Xu (who has declared that his own opinion is not relevant): I believe you have made an argument from lack of reading comprehension.

I made no argument, I simply asked Dienne questions.

@Dienne: I'm not sure I understand. I did the exact same thing you did. I evaluated an individual based on his writings and drew conclusions. Xu is free to tell me my conclusions were wrong, but he has chosen not to do so.

No, lexi, you once again -- as is typical for an internet troll -- merely made an unsubstantiated assertion (that I have a therapist).

You are terribly confused, asking questions is part of an argument.

How boring. And yes, your conclustions are wrong. Your "facts" are wrong. Your questions are based in wrong presuppositions. Your analyses are wrong. Your opinions are based on misunderstandings and faulty memories, so are wrong. Your spelling of my name is wrong (it has the same number of characters as Dienne, yet you clearly have no problem with her name, or double letters). Your posts are wrong on so many levels so much, I only read them for comic relief -- and you aren't that funny!

@Xu: Interesting. I concluded that you have been to therapy. You told me "your conclusions are wrong". Now you say my conclusion may or may not be wrong and you fault my logic for the confusion. I'll let that speak for itself.

But back to the original point. What makes you feel qualified to judge the effectiveness of the therapy received by someone who has never described to you the type of therapy he received?

I suppose you could argue that my logic was opoor if yiou wer lying but I donI understand now that my logic was wrong becasue I assumed you wer telling teh truth.

if I assumed you wer telling the trith.

you wer lying. I should have factrored taht into teh equaltion.

assume that menas you ahve not been to therapy.

I didnt; aks if you feel qualified to judge

Pleasea nswer teh question. why do you feel qualified Sorry, I misunderstood you when you told me "your conclusions are wrong." I concluded that you've been to therapy. Now you're telling me that my conclusions may not be wrong.

About "Change of Subject."

"Change of Subject" by Chicago Tribune op-ed columnist Eric Zorn contains observations, reports, tips, referrals and tirades, though not necessarily in that order. Links will tend to expire, so seize the day. For an archive of Zorn's latest Tribune columns click here. An explanation of the title of this blog is here. If you have other questions, suggestions or comments, send e-mail to ericzorn at gmail.com.
More about Eric Zorn

Contributing editor Jessica Reynolds is a 2012 graduate of Loyola University Chicago and is the coordinator of the Tribune's editorial board. She can be reached at jreynolds at tribune.com.